Where history, scholarship, the academic life, and other stuff meet.

During my series commenting on Thomas DiLorenzo’s 2008 interview with Brian Lamb, it was evident that aside from claims about “court historians,” a “church of Lincoln,” and a “Lincoln cult,” Dr. DiLorenzo was interested in the political leanings of certain Lincoln scholars. But what about his own? After all, if DiLorenzo interprets people’s historical perspectives based upon his assessment of their political perspectives, it stands to reason that he should be subjected to like treatment.

Dr. DiLorenzo’s never made a secret of his libertarianism or his advocacy of the Austrian school of economics. That in itself does not get us very far, although it helps highlight his concern about government action, the growth of central government, and certain policies. But he says more than that.

For one thing, he has some very nice things to say about the League of the South, which he claims “advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson.” He cites with approval a book that argued against the constitutionality of Brown v. Board of Education: “The Supreme Court ‘set itself above the Constitution’ for what the majority believed was a good cause. Constitution schmonstitution.” In 2004, he told Southern Partisan: “No one is proposing anything near constitutional government. I consider the act of voting to be treasonous to the Constitution. I’m not going to vote.”

Interestingly, let me add a quote from a British Libertarian, on the civil war to help to compare and contrast the perspectives of a CW Historian with other Libertarian pov. Dr. Sean Gabb, of the Libertarian Alliance wrote:” by Sean Gabb
> I have been asked by several of my American readers to comment on their
presidential election. I did think to ignore these requests. Having spent very
little time there, I cannot be regarded as an expert on America. Nor am I
particularly fond of the place. I think its war of independence was brought on
less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield’s judgement on the illegality of
slavery at common law. I also think its war between the states was won by the
wrong side. It would have been better for humanity had the Union been broken up and its member states made into British satellites. Sadly, the United States
survived, and was able to grow into the mercantilist oligarchy that took the
most significant – because ultimately the most successful – place in the
triumvirate, with Soviet communism and European national socialism, that ended
the hegemony of English liberalism.”